Obama's misleading NAFTA attack

One of the reasons the Clintons are so hated by many thinking and observant people is that they just can't seem to ever tell the truth. Obviously, the Obama people have nothing in particular invested in the word "boon" other than the fact that this was the word Newsday chose to use to paraphrase Hillary's attitude towards NAFTA. What is important here is the IDEA conveyed by the article -- not the specific word or words used --that Hillary thought NAFTA was a plus for the economy. This idea, however paraphrased, can be either true or false.

Now here comes the sort of sleight-of-hand trickery and deception that Bill Clinton was famous for and that Hillary hereself has frequently demonstrated throughout the campaign, especially in the debates. If she really hadn't said that NAFTA was a good thing for the economy (however expressed), all she has to do is to say that Newsday misrepresented what she told them because she has never thought or said so. Rather than doing this, she does not in any way actually deny the Newsday assertion (which makes her immune to a rebuttal from Newsday), but tries dishonestly to deflect the focus completely from her true views to the BOGUS issue of the forthrightness of the Obama camp. Nevertheless, she does it in such a way to give many people the impression (without actually doing so) that she is denying the assertion in the Newsday article. Although this would never fool anyone who is alert and really paying close attention (no half-decent lawyer, for example, would be fooled here), sadly this sort of trickery manages to deceive many people. I guess this should not be surprising given the current poor state of the system of education in this country that leaves so many of us functionally illiterate.

Of course, some might argue that she has technically done nothing wrong because she has not said anything that is literally untrue. Although I agree her response might not assert anything that is literally untrue, my argument is that this is not the appropriate standard. This should become clearer once it is remembered that some federal laws in this country will impose criminal sactions on people and send them to jail for making assertions that are literally true but deliberately misleading. ( Please note that I'm not arguing that her assertions in this context involve a crime, but simply that they still amount to lying, even though no literal or direct false statement might be involved, given that her INTENT is to deceive.) One example are the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws that include in their definition of criminal fraud not just false statements of material facts, but also statements of material facts that are misleading.

Let me just say this another way: far from trying to mislead people, since the Obama folks were not privy to the conversation themselves and are unable to quote the exact words Hillary used concerning NAFTA, the safest and most honorable way for them to proceed was to stick to and quote the exact word or phrase those who spoke to Hillary directly used to characterize her view. If the Newsday article is wrong, why doesn't she say so honestly and directly? Rather than doing this, she skirts a direct denial yet tries to give people the false impression she's actually denying the truth of the statement. What is even worse is that the Clinton people then have the nerve to accuse their opponent of dishonesty. Don't they have any shame?

It is this article that is misleading - the Obama flyer doesn't attribute the word 'boon' to Clinton, it simply says that is how she saw NAFTA. The word is used, as in Newsday, to summarise her position.
You're going to have to do better than that if you want to accuse Obama of being misleading.

Please, let's not pick nits - I DO NOT think this ad is misleading. Nobody claimed that the word "boon" was Hillary Clinton's - it was an accurate paraphrase or indirect quote of her position by a reputable magazine Newsday and what she thinks about NAFTA. Bottom line, I think the ad accurately portrays the fact that Clinton expressed support for NAFTA.

From David Sirote at Huffington Post:

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

"Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton's campaign can manufacture supposed "outrage" that anyone would say she supported NAFTA - all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America."

"What a total insult to America's intelligence"

It is interesting that Obama stole the image from an anti-union group called the Center for Union Facts: http://www.unionfacts.com/ads/chainFence.cfm

It is interesting that Clinton stole her warmonger stance from George Bush.
Clinton is fascist scum, indistinguishable from McCain and Bush.
We deserve better.

calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant the economic anarchist/ immorally capitalistic a remarkable set of new rights and privileges

trade deals with China are more of an assault on the USA's economy than any trade deal with Canada or Mexico after all China is where the all the jobs went that were suppose to go to the impoverished Mexicain Country.

I suppose Obama never supported anything that didn't turn out exactly as he thought it would? He's never retracted anything? This is ridiculous and his ad is misleading.

Okay, not everyone is an advertising exec, but most people HAVE heard of stock images. It's a way of saving campaign contributors money be using generic art of photographs from a common bank of images for a nominal fee. This is much cheaper than having to find, shoot, and secure the rights for an image you wish to use, or compose one from scratch. To say Mr. Obama "stole" an image is ignorant, incorrect, and libelous.

All you hard working union folks in Ohio you may want to think twice about voting for Hillary.
1. She was a union buster when she worked at WalMart.
2. Her campaign guru Mark Penn is anti-union propagandist and does work for companies who want no unions or want them disbanded.
3. Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA and now all union jobs are going south, literary.
If you don’t believe it just Google: The Clinton’s and Scandals.

Great comments from many of you. Jon, I think the problem with your position is that PLENTY of people.. millions even and certainly many who would know, said that NAFTA wouldn't work the way that Clinton presented it. Certainly, just as the article referenced at the beginning indicates.. Hillary was a HUGE Champion of NAFTA. She needs to be willing to accept the problems that creates for her at least in Ohio. In farming states, which were benefitted by NAFTA she can reap the rewards by contrast.

There was never much question that we would lose manufacturing jobs to NAFTA the assumption was that all these Americans would love the opportunity to jump up and go onto other career paths and that the government would make it easy. Change is never easy it seems.

Certainly, if you want to ignore the NAFTA debate regarding Ms. Clinton, consider the fact that she was actively anti-union during her time on the board of WalMart.

That alone would be enough to explain why she and McCain get along so well...speaking of... did you all know that she got into a vodka drinking contest with McCain during a junket to Estonia in 2004? It's in an article called Becoming McCain in NewsWeek. How Presidential of both of them. Isn't that a drinking contest you would have wanted to see?

The mailer accurately describes her position on Nafta -- before this election cycle.

Some more -- in particular, watch the YouTube from "Meet the Press."

"The economic recovery plan stands first and foremost as a testament to both good ideas and political courage. National service. The Brady Bill. Family Leave. NAFTA." -- HRC, 2002

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250750

"I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America." -- HRC, 2004

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw

The Newsday article with the "boon" statement was written in September 2006, not 12 years ago.

Let's not forget....How Hillary Clinton was appointed Chairperson for Arkansas Education Assoc., by her husband, then Governor of Arkansas, to come up with a "solution", to improve the state's educational system that was rapidly on a decline, as was Arkansas' economy. Well, the Clinton's thought it would be a great idea to raise sales taxes by 33%, to fund K-12 public education, this would make Hillary feel accomplished, I guess, and also this tax would somehow make Arkansas competitive with the nation economically. (It ranked 49 in per capita income). So, the big "solution" was to raise salex tax, spend more money on schools, but what they didn't take into account, were important matters like, tax rates, infrastructure, and labor-force competiveness to promise growth. Hillary Clinton refers to her work as being "successful", but Arkansas' educational and economic ranking remained the same.

Then there is her 1993 Health Care "Solution"....again, her husband, then President Bill Clinton, gave her another assignment, he placed Hillary in charge of Universal Health Care. Hillary wasn't able to pass her plan, at a time when her own husband was President, and the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats. Now her big "solution" is "mandated" Health Care Plan. Smells like another "flop".

For a woman who runs her campaign on, "EXPERIENCE AND SOLUTIONS", I'm not seeing to much "solution". As far as her experience....sometimes it not about the experience, but what you do with it, that counts....for instance, not voting for an unjust war, funding for the war, and her experience should have told her that you need to read intelligience reports prior to making a critical vote to initiate war against any country.

Is This The Woman We Want As Our Commander-in-Chief ????

This is the usual Clinton tactic of diverting attention away from substance to a tiny detail like "boon".
The mess she has made of her campaign should cause anyone to reasses their support of her for President.

I THINK WHAT WE ARE WATCHING FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN IS NOT A PRESIDENTI A L CAMPAIGN....BUT REMAKE OF 'HE WIZARD OF OZ' AND
GUESS WHOSE THE COWARDLY LION HIDING BEHIND ALL THE CLINTON
HATERS EITHER OBAMA DOESNT WEAR THE PANTS IN HIS HOUSE OR HIS
CHIP AGAINST THIS COUNTRY IS JUST AS BAD AS HS WIFES BUT HE CAN
HIDE IT BETTER
BECAUSE HE DOESNT ACT LIKE JESSIE J OR AL SHARPTON DOESNT
MEAN HE THINKS DIFFERENTLY....THE CLINTON HATERS HAVE FOUND
THE RIGHT FOIL ....IN OBAMA HOW SAD FOR THIS COUNTRY...

I'm heartened, really, to see how many of us see through the Clinton lies and spin. We DO deserve better. I don't like Hillary, and I never have. Voting for her husband twice during the 1990s does little to make me feel good about the Clinton brand.

Their time is done. The time is now. It is time for a new, fresh perspective.

Hillary is doing exactly what Bill did... she is taking one short word or phrase, in this case "boon" used by Newsday that she didn't actually say but didn't dispute either, and focusing on that minor point instead of making accurate corrections the real issue at hand. (Of course in this case there are no corrections she can make.)

You'll remember Bill did this very same thing with the term "sexual relations" as it was very narrowly defined in *A* dictionary as "intercourse." And the same was pointed out in many other instances during his terms, campaigns and speeches.

Plenty of reports from both sides touted Bill is being a master carefully choosing words so as not to be accused of lying -- all based on a technicality of our English language. Apparently Hillary is just as skilled or somebody on her staff is working with same angles as someone on her husband's staff.

Regardless, I believe the Obama ad is perfectly honest on this point and is in no way misleading neither intentionally nor mistakenly. The only shame here belongs to Hillary and her full-fledged support of NAFTA for such a very long time (although maybe not now).

Nothing will take away the momentum that Obama has gained after Super Tuesday. Bill Clinton knows better - if she loses TX she is out! Better for her to bow out gracefully from this election when she isn't trailing substantially behind rather than have to lose more States and HAVE to leave. Hopefully she will do that after March 4th and not wait until PA.
People hate the Clintons for more reasons...watch this to refresh your memory!
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I

I was literally shocked last night after watching this - she is double faced for sure and I can't believe that she decided to run for President after all this. Stop deceiving the common American with your fake words of solutions - you don't deserve to be the President! And the speech she gave at Cincinnati yesterday had no dignity - she sounded like a fish monger. How could an ex first lady and someone running for President speak this way? Shame on you Hillary!

Shame on the Boston Globe! How did the Clinton campaign dupe you like that?

The issue is whether Senator Clinton has supported NAFTA in the past and then changed her position as a candidate for President. The answer is yes!

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/23/hillary_clintons_support_of_na.php

The Clinton campaign is trying to obscure the issue by nitpicking over quotations around the word 'boon.' Let's look at the real issue. Is Senator Clinton on the record in support of NAFTA -- many times. She's a flip-flopper who'll say anything to get elected. That's why she'll lose -- it's so transparent. Case closed!

Clem Doria, please STOP SHOUTING! As soon as I see anything written in all caps I automatically discount it.

And PS, when I went back and forced myself to read it ... your grammar threw me off even more. Please, try sentences next time. Use spellcheck and avoid misused cliches ("his chip against this country is as bad as his wifes"?????). Save your hateful messages for what I presume are your frequent verbal assaults on others.

I'm for Obama, but honestly, I'd vote for Clinton over McCain any day. I'd just hope that Obama's message would inform her presidency and help her be the unifying and inspiring leader we need.

I see they decided not to post my comment being it may have been to much damaging information on clinton as far as the things she stated in her books what she said back in the 90's on national tv and so on from there. I really appreciate boston globe for its censorship!